However, I felt compelled to make a quick, blunt, review of Todd Hargrove’s: A Guide to Better Movement: The Science and Practice of Moving With More Skill And Less Pain. Simply put, this book is the most important book on movement in the last 20 years, possibly in existence up to this point. It will become a required reading for every movement professional to truly understand movement and pain. I have made pitiful attempts to touch on some of the concepts of this book in the past, but Todd has so elegantly written words which convey a clear understanding of the integration of movement in the Neuromatrix, that I don’t know if I could ever add to it (but will foolish try at some point!). This book is fully accessible to both the clinician and the patient/client. Thank you Todd for your efforts, your clarity, and how incredibly affordable you have made this knowledge in an age of academic inflation. If you don’t buy this book, you are doing a disservice to your patients, and yourself. Buy it now!

The purpose of this post is to have a central link on this blog which will contain brief summaries of the growing evidence demonstrating a continued need for us to examine the role of belief and movement interventions prior to pursuing surgical interventions for many common orthopedic conditions.

Please let me be clear that there are certainly clear need for surgical intervention for the management of symptoms, even in the absence of medical necessity. In fact, the structure may be involved and may have initiated the output from the brain, but may not necessarily be responsible for continued symptoms. However, the emphasis on structure has resulted in a growing trend towards excessive, unnecessary, expensive, and risky surgical procedures for the management of pain and movement dysfunction. These procedures are occurring despite clear evidence indicating that just because a “damaged” structure innervated with nocioceptors is removed or “repaired” and the patient feels better and/or moves better, the structure itself does not fully explain for the existence of the symptoms, nor does it fully explain for improved symptoms. The advent of placebo surgeries and increased number of true randomized controls for surgical intervention have opened a whole new realm of understanding of the role of structure in the human body.

This post is incomplete as it stands and will be constantly updated. I welcome any and all recommended additions to it, with the hope that it will grow into a stand alone section of the blog itself:

Arthroscopic Debridement for Knee Osteoarthritis
First, the landmark study by Moseley et al. which started it all in 2002 which showed that both arthroscopic debridement (‘cleaning up”) and lavage (‘washing out’) were no better than placebo surgery for moderate to severe osteoarthritis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12110735

Second, Kirkley et al. addressed some the questions brought about from critics about the pain measures from the Moseley et al. This study compared arthroscopic debridement and lavage to physical therapy and conservative medical therapy and found again that neither arthroscopic debridement nor lavage provide any additional benefit over physical therapy and conservative medical therapy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18784099

Fourth, Katz et al. looked at individuals with a meniscal tear and evidence of mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis on imaging found that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy with physical therapy had no better outcomes that physical therapy alone: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1301408

Finally, the 2nd edition of the “Treatment for Osteoarthritis of the knee” from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons officially states “We cannot recommend performing arthroscopy with lavage and/or debridement in patients with a primary diagnosis of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee.” and their first recommendation in this association statement was “We recommend that patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee participate in self-management programs, strengthening, low-impact aerobic exercises, and neuromuscular education; and engage in physical activity consistent with national guidelines.” with the following clarifying statement written within the recommendation that “The exercise interventions were predominantly conducted under supervision, most often by a physical therapist”.

Spinal Fusion for Low Back PainA study which followed up on previous randomized controlled trials of spinal fusion versus exercise and behavioral therapy for chronic low back pain found that there no difference in outcome after 10 years and there is no evidence for continued deterioration of symptoms in the absence of surgical intervention. Making strong suggestion for avoiding fusion due to the increased risks of surgical intervention for spinal fusion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200413

Vertebroplasty
Multi-center trial which compared vertebroplasty to a simulated procedure (placebo) without cement for OSTEOPOROTIC SPINAL FRACTURES. The capital letters are for the fact that for the simulated procedure, those vertebrae are still “not secured” or “healed”. Despite this, outcomes between groups for pain and pain related disability were similar at 3 months. The authors did an excellent examination of cross over effects, well worth reading the full text: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0900563

A similar study design was performed which also confirmed that the fractures were unhealed via MRI and expanded the follow-up to 6 months. Similarly no benefits for vertebroplasty over sham was noted: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0900429

A meta-analysis of these two studies concludes that the hypothesis of the possibility of a specific subgroup benefiting from vertebroplasty is unlikely to have unique benefits from vertebroplasty: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d3952

Inappropriate imaging, excessive specialist referral, and lack of physical therapy referral for Low back painA recent study on trends in the management of back pain examine the treatment of back pain from January 1, 1999, through December 26, 2010. The researchers found a worsening trend in the management of back pain inappropriately referred for imaging and specialists when they should have been referred to physical therapy first: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1722522

Non-surgical intervention of atraumatic full-thickness rotator cuff tearsA multicenter study of 452 patients who are treated with physical therapy first rather than initiating surgery for full-thickness (complete) rotator cuff tears found that 75% of the patients after 2 years opted not to have surgery due to a satisfactory outcome from physical therapy alone: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23540577

Achilles Ruptures treated non-operatively have equivalent outcomes to operative interventionsA randomized study of 144 patients with an average age of 40 revealed that non-operative treatment of achilles ruptures had no difference in functional strength, range of motion, calf circumference, functional scores, or re-rupture rate between groups. In addition, a greater number of soft tissue complications were noted in the operative group: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21037028

Is ACL reconstruction the best management strategy for ACL rupture?A systematic review and meta-analysis of ACL repair versus non-operative repair demonstrates poor available evidence for ACL interventions as a whole, but that current evidence appears to indicate that a non-surgical intervention should be attempted prior to considering surgical intervention. http://www.thekneejournal.com/article/S0968-0160(13)00199-3/abstract

MRI detection of disc herniation has no indication on outcome and is associated with lesser sense of well-beingIn a study which examined both surgical and conservative treatment of sciatica and lumbar disc herniation, the presence of disc herniation on MRI after 1 year had no association with the outcome. 85% with the presence of disc herniation after 1 year of treatment still had a favorable outcomes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23484826

This is in agreement with previous research which revealed that not only was MRI findings not representative of the patients symptoms or outcomes, but that knowledge of the MRI findings resulted in a lesser sense of well being: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16244269/

Surgical Scraping for Achilles TendinopathyIn a study of patients with bilateral chronic achilles tendinopathy, surgical scraping performed on one side (the most painful side). Despite having expected to need a second surgery for the opposite side, 11 of the 13 patients had full resolution of symptoms bilaterally after unilateral scraping. Many already had full satisfaction bilaterally within the first 6 weeks. The authors make a good discussion why they believe these improvements were centrally mediated, not mechanically oriented: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23193327

No difference in outcomes between arthroscopic acromioplasty and supervised exercise for shoulder impingement syndromeA randomized control trial of 140 patients with shoulder impingement syndrome showed no differences in pain or function at any point over a 5 year follow-up. Furthermore, surgical intervention was not considered cost effective and the recommendation was that structured exercise should be the treatment of choice for shoulder impingement: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23836479

Shoulder Impingement Syndrome and Central Sensitization
A trial which compared 17 age matched patients awaiting arthroscopic subacromial decompression to a matching asymptomatic control group and identified a significant proportion of these patients presented with notable central sensitization. Those with the most pronounced levels of central sensitization had significantly worsening outcomes at 3 months post subacromial decompression than those with lower levels: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21464489/

Multiple abnormalities of the hip are normal imaging findings in asymptomatic individuals, including labral tearsIn a random sampling for 45 volunteers (60% males) with an average age of 37.8 y/o, MRI imaging revealed “Labral tears were identified in 69% of hips, chondral defects in 24%, ligamentum teres tears in 2.2%, labral/paralabral cysts in 13%, acetabular bone edema in 11%, fibrocystic changes of the head/neck junction in 22%, rim fractures in 11%, subchondral cysts in 16%, and osseous bumps in 20%”: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23104610

Cervical surgery with physical therapy versus physical therapy alone resulted in similar outcomes after 2 yearsAlthough surgical intervention demonstrated a more rapid improvement in the first year, these differences were no longer present after 2 years. Due to the decreased risks and decreases costs, physical therapy was recommended prior to considering surgical intervention: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23778373/

*Note: This is part of a series of thoughts on the topic of looking at movement and movement related symptoms as influenced by the nervous system. These will be dynamic posts with additional content and references being added as time allows, but the primary purpose of the posts are to share my current thoughts on the influence of manual therapy and exercise on what we see and feel in our patients. I hope others will engage me in these thoughts and provide their perspectives and also criticism into the process.

In part 1, I wanted to provide the definition for post-antalgic patterning which I believe is important to understand before thinking about how we treat it (if it even needs to be treated), for which I lay the ground work here:

Post-Antalgic Patterning – Part 2 – A Quick Reference for Manual Therapy and the Nervous System

A little over a year ago Jason Silvernail released a great video summary on manual therapy and the nervous system called “Crossing the Chasm” which definitely had its intended effect on me. This discussion has been a “hot topic” for at least a decade. As I have attempted to share this same information with other clinicians, I have noted a trend towards wanting more “practical” connection between the techniques we use on a daily basis and the nervous system. As a result, over the last year I have started to formulate a way to bring a little bit of clarity to a very complex topic.

Mechanoreceptors – The elephant in the room

In most of our academic preparatory programs for various rehabilitation disciplines, our afferent and efferent sensory nerve fiber education has focused primarily on severe neurological conditions of the peripheral and central nervous system (stroke, spinal cord injury, CNS disease, etc.). However, when it comes to the role of the nervous system in musculoskeletal conditions, the focus tends to be on nocioception (note of importance: nocioceptors are NOT PAIN RECEPTORS!), chemoreceptors (in particular the relationship to inflammatory mediators), proprioception, muscle spindles, and the golgi tendon reflex. We might touch on some afferents when we talk about gate control, but in general, mechanoreceptors are a very minor part of “most” professional academic programming offerings. This is despite that fact that mechanoreceptors may be one of the bodies most densely dispersed points of interaction with our nervous system, in particularly in the tissues we commonly claim to be treating (joint capsules, fascia, ligaments, muscles, etc.).

I remember vaguely talking about Ruffini Endings, Merkel’s discs, Pacinian and Meisners Corpuscles, but I don’t remember much emphasis on them and I certainly didn’t see any value in even recalling their names at the time. Yet now I realize they are probably some of the most important structures I deal with on a daily basis, in particular when it comes to manual therapy interventions. We get so obsessed with the biomechanical properties of soft tissue and joints and the illusion that we can mechanically alter them through our hands and various tools despite growing evidence that this simply is not the case, or at best, has an extremely small role in the big picture. Yet we choose to ignore, or at the very least downplay, the one basic fundamental pathway, the cascade of neurophysiological events which occur every time skin is compressed. These events can result both in short term and long term tissue and movement quality changes which have the potential to explain every single “change” seen through the use of manual therapy. Furthermore, any inflammatory, fluid dynamics, or thermal responses which potentially could come about from an aggressive intervention could have chemical, thermal, and fluid interactions with mechanoreceptors, chemoreceptors, and thermoreceptors thereby compounding and/or altering an existing externally induced neurological stimulus. If the inflammatory, fluid, or thermal process remains active for hours or days, this could yield a sustained stimulus on mechanoreceptors, thermoreceptors, and chemoreceptors thereby influence the nervous system for an extended period of time (think of a “built-in portal e-stim unit” that already exists in all humans).

Perhaps more important than the external stimulus itself is the ability to modify, enhance, and/or guide the therapeutic outcome of the neurophysiologic response from the stimulus with an educational context provided to the patient, allowing for a profound impact on how they perceive touch and movement.

So what does the pathway for this manual therapy to mechanoreceptor stimulus to tissue quality/movement change look like? Dr. Schleip has perhaps best described this in his work on fascial plasticity, of which this diagram provides perhaps the most concise explanation of the relationship between manual therapy and the nervous system.

To further help solidify the connection between our commonly utilized manual therapy techniques and the nervous system, I put together a couple of acronyms to show the connection between groups of mechanoreceptors and various manual therapy technique:

*Note: This is part of a series of thoughts on the topic of looking at movement and movement related symptoms as influenced by the nervous system. These will be dynamic posts with additional content and references being added as time allows, but the primary purpose of the posts are to share my current thoughts on the influence of manual therapy and exercise on what we see and feel in our patients. I hope others will engage me in these thoughts and provide their perspectives and also criticism into the process.

Post-antalgic Patterning – Part 1 – A DefinitionInjury occurs either acutely or cumulatively. A threshold is reached and threat is detected, whether conscious or unconscious, the body wants to protect itself. As a part of the physiologic chemical cascade of events which occurs in an attempt to address the potential structural damage, the nervous system, both central and peripheral, protects the region through numerous responses including localized guarding or splinting. This guarding process involves contractile activation of muscle AND the CONTRACTILE activation of what has previously been defined as inert soft tissue, such as fascia, joint capsules, ligaments (1). As a result, kinematics, arthrokinematics, and tissue dynamics may be altered and movement may change. Some of it is subtle, some of it not (2). Regardless, it appears that occasionally, this alarmed state stays active long after the tissue has healed and the threat removed (3).

Steering away from the complicated matter of pain, better discussed in Explain Pain, I wish to focus on what I call “post-antalgic patterning”. This is the existence of an altered movement pattern that is most often an unconscious behavior that remains long after an injury has been healed, or possibly even perceived injury. It exists anywhere in the body with any movement, not just gait! This pattern is a chronic pattern, which begins as early as 2 weeks after an acute injury and remains a minimum of 6 months or for a multitude of years. It may be associated with patient symptoms through regional interdependence, or it may not. Post-antalgic patterning may resolve spontaneously or it may best respond to touch and/or movement coaching. In this definition, any clinician perceived “dysfunction” of the joint or soft tissue contributing to this movement pattern is propagated by the nervous system, not structural change and is minimally influenced by joint or tissue inflammation or swelling.

This pattern may or may not be mechanically inefficient, and it may, or may not, further propagate future episodes of threat elsewhere in the body. In truth, it may just be what it is. Perhaps changing it makes functional improvements and improved symptoms, perhaps not. This is key, because we really don’t understand it, and we have to know when to just ignore it and have the patient move on with life despite this perceived asymmetry, because in reality, we do not know if it might have always been present. This is important, because you have to put limits on how much you try and attempt to alter, as the concept of a “symmetrical” human is fairly illogical. Rather, the objective is to simply to provide an environment to allow movement in a way that the patient can regain trust in these areas, to become more active, which is where the healing occurs.

Your hands or tools aren’t magic. They may or may not be appropriate to providing that supportive environment for altering this pattern, but if you use them, realize their sole purpose is to get the patient moving, reducing threat and letting the tissue re-accommodate to activity.

As indicated in my review of the EDGE series of tools and the fact that I am a re-seller of the EDGE (my disclaimer), I am a huge advocate of Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization (IASTM) in terms of providing a different neurophysiological input in comparison to using your hands and reducing the amount of stress you place on your hands with soft tissue treatment techniques. I have found that with practice I can accomplish similar within session changes in ROM, strength, and symptoms as other manual techniques. At the same time, I question the rational of using tools to promote tissue healing and to break down scar tissue. I believe this approach has promoted far too aggressive treatment in the past, and at this time, we really do not have great evidence to support this philosophy of treatment. I hope this post provides some insight into why I have this concern.

What is the evidence for IASTM use?

While I believe IASTM to be a valuable tool in my rehabilitation arsenal with its own indications and limitations of use, there are some who have purported tools as being downright magical in their abilities to “heal” patients. Some major brands claim 80-100% success rates for nearly every musculoskeletal condition under the sun, but record and maintain these records privately, available on request only. From the published experimental study realm, far less data is available.

To date, only one randomized controlled trial in humans has shown a better outcome using a tool over hand based manual therapy intervention. Wilson et al. (1) compared cross friction (using hands) to IASTM on individuals with patellar tendinitis. 20 subjects (12 men & 8 women) were randomly assigned to either the IASTM group (10 subjects) or the hand cross friction group (10 subjects) with both groups having the same standardized therex and modality interventions. The IASTM group had 8 treatments over 4 weeks and the cross friction group had 12 treatments over 4 weeks. Full resolution was considered having no swelling, no pain upon palpation, and minimal pain (<3/10) performing six single leg hops, squatting to thigh parallel, and performing an eccentric load step down. Clinical evaluation and self-reported questionnaires were completed at 0, 6, and 12 weeks. Based on their full resolution criteria, at 6 weeks 10/10 subjects in the IASTM group had 100% resolved symptoms and 6/10 in the cross friction group had full resolution. The remaining 4 from the cross friction group was crossed over to IASTM to be re-assessed at 12 weeks with 2 additional subjects accomplishing the full resolution criteria established by the researchers.

Only two other experimental studies have examined IASTM as an intervention. Burke, et al. (2) compared IASTM to soft tissue mobilization with hands on carpal tunnel syndrome and found that both were equivocal to each other. Blanchette et al. (3) compared IASTM to education, ergonomics, and stretching on lateral epicondylitis, IASTM by itself was found to have no greater or earlier improvements than the control.

Numerous level 2 evidence case reports and case series studies that examined IASTM have demonstrated favorable outcomes in isolation and after other interventions had failed.(4-9) However, as is the nature of these studies, they provide no insight on the mechanism or whether another intervention may have been just as beneficial.

From my personal perspective, I am not looking for magic and I have no concern whether outcomes using a tool may be equivocal to my hands or other interventions(2,3), because at the very least I know it does have a therapeutic effect. This now assures me that I can give my hands a break from time to time and be more willing to experiment a variety of patients using the stimulus of the tool as option, potentially identifying an individual who may be more positively responsive to the tool than you had previously assumed.

Can IASTM help with tissue healing?

Two of the largest names in IASTM make numerous claims regarding the tissue healing and “regenerating” ability of their IASTM tools and techniques. They both have webpages which claim amazing research evidence for their philosophy of treatment. Sadly, little of this “evidence” is available for public consumption. A quick glance at this list shows that only 3 studies on rats provide any insight on the role of IASTM in tissue healing. I will separate many of the popular claims of tissue healing into 3 categories to review the literature: Activate the histamine response and increase local inflammatory response, break down scar tissue and/or re-arrange some nondescript “fibers”, and increasing fibroblasts to the region.

Activate the histamine response and increase local inflammation

Oddly, although erythema is the most obvious effect noted clinically with IASTM, this is not something that is well studied. I have only been able to find one study which utilized Gua Sha to examine micro circulation. (10) The comparison of Gua Sha to IASTM is difficult to make because Gua Sha is significantly more aggressive than most forms of contemporary IASTM. Gua literally translates “to scrape or scratch” and Sha can best be described as “red, raised,millet-size rash”. As shown below, it is extremely traumatic looking:

I personally would never want to do anything like this one of my patients. With that in mind, the results of the study demonstrate that, shockingly, yes local superficial circulation is increased when you scrape the tissue. However, this was after 7.5 minutes of aggressive treatment, which is far more than the average IASTM protocol. Furthermore, the circulation increases were noted as superficial, which questions the ability to infer increased nutrient delivery to, or removal of waste from, deeper muscle, tendon, or other soft tissue.

On a side note to those of us that are neurophysiologically minded, this study also examined Gua Sha’s effect on decreasing pain. After treatment, decreased pain was not only noted locally and regionally but also in areas far distal from the treatment region. This finding made the authors themselves question the relevance of increasing local circulation for the purpose of pain relief. But I digress…

Scar Tissue (Type III collagen) break down and “realigning fibers”

So what about the idea of breaking down scar tissue or realigning fibers? Loghman and Warden examined IASTM on experimentally induced MCL injuries in rats. (11) They did not specifically address the soft tissue breakdown or “fiber realignment” but did note that “There were no grossly observable differences between ‘IASTM’ treated and non-treated ligaments at either 4 or 12 weeks post-injury; however, non-treated ligaments often had more adhesions and granular tissue, and were more difficult to harvest than IASTM-treated ligaments.” which to date is the only experimental discussion of tissue adhesions related to IASTM.

I will note that Dr. E has reported that a colleague of his is completing a ultrasound imaging study which notes changes in the fiber quality after 2-3 minutes of IASTM treatment. Since this study is still being prepared for publication, at this time I have not been able to review the results.

This is one area I would love to see evidence for tissue change, and I believe there is a “slim chance” for us to scrape “adhesions” surrounding superficial paratendons and tendon insertions around our distal extremities (ie: achilles tendon and insertion). However, it is important to keep in mind that when we feel the “grittiness” or “adhesions” under our tools, we really don’t know what we are feeling. We cannot say with certainty that it is scar tissue we are feeling. We forget that way back in the day during cadaver dissection we used to see a lot of fatty tissue and non-deformable soft tissue adhesions subcutaneously which could easily explain what we are feeling. Further more, often times after several sessions of treatment, these “adhesions” rarely change, only the tissue tension and tonicity we originally aimed for changes. BUT, there are times that these “adhesions” do disappear after treatment, and I would like to know more about that.

Despite all this, I will not deny that secretly in the back of my head I would love to believe that me scraping paratendon sheaths is breaking up longitudinal “scar tissue” (type III collagen) and promoting movement of the sheath and therefore the tendon, but I recognize simple muscle activation and movement probably breaks up as much “scar tissue” as anything I am trying to do to the tendon with the IASTM tool.

Promoting Collagen Synthesis by increasing fibroblasts proliferation

Increased fibroblast proliferation has been the only consistently demonstrated histological property of IASTM. (11,12,13) Although this has only been noted in rats. Furthermore, Gehlsen et al. demonstrated that increased pressure from the tool resulted in greater fibroblast proliferation. (13) However, what the value of increased fibroblast proliferation is in the long term has not been demonstrated. Loghman and Warden’s rat MCL study showed that although the IASTM group had greater improvements in healing early on, by the 12th week, there were no histological differences in healing between treated and untreated rat MCLs.

And that’s it, that is all we know regarding tissue healing and regeneration related to IASTM. From evidence in rats only, we can promote fibroblast proliferation, but even in the rat studies, when compared to tissue healing without IASTM, no difference is noted after 12 weeks of healing.

Conclusion

Personally, I do not think the tissue healing concepts will pan out any better in future research, nor do I care if it does or not. It is too easy to fall into the “tissue quality” trap, where we chase the make-believe picture of “good quality tissue”, rather than looking at objective measures which are rapidly changeable to meet the patient’s functional goals. As with any manual therapy intervention, I am primarily interested in within and between session improvements which allow me to promote movement to get the patient moving which is ultimately the only thing that will change tissue. If IASTM helps tissue healing, it’s a bonus, but I do not want it to be focus of my treatment or my education.

I want to end this post with reference to a recent study by Alfredson, et al. which examined the most extreme version of tissue scraping, surgical scraping under anesthetic, in the treatment of chronic achilles tendinopathy. (14) In their study, they recruited only individuals with bilateral chronic achilles tendinopathy, and surgical scraping was only performed on one side (the most painful side). Despite having expected to need a second surgery for the opposite side, 11 of the 13 patients had full resolution of symptoms bilaterally after unilateral scraping. Many already had full satisfaction bilaterally within the first 6 weeks. The authors make a good discussion why they believe these improvements were centrally mediated, not mechanically oriented. It is an excellent read and well worth the time locating.

The Sales Pitch

With the understanding that many of the systems out there have little published evidence for the unique benefits of their expensive educational programs that they require you to complete in order for you to be able to purchase their IASTM tools. Why not consider one of the lowest cost options on the market with the best ergonomics, inclusion of all the most popular concavities and convexities (multiple tools in one), and no entry level requirements available in both stainless steel and plastic? Check out the EDGE and EDGEility series of tools!

Furniture sliders are extremely inexpensive (less than $10 at Lowes) and extremely versatile. I was inspired by Ross from Ross Training to experiment with these tools. One of my favorite exercise progressions is a multi-planar single leg squat. The slider is a great cue to promote mobility and stability as well as adding flow to a sequence of movements. It easily allows progressions and regressions based on the needs of the individual.

Dr. E just released the EDGEility plastic (delrin) Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization (IASTM) tool. I have been using the stainless steel EDGE tool for over a year now, therefore I thought it was time for another review and to compare both versions of the EDGE side by side. This time I went with a video review. Unfortunately, the choice of this medium once again highlights one of my greatest weaknesses… The ability to speak.

Hope you find it useful regardless:

If you want to have a quick written summary of the video without the fluff, I choose the EDGE series of IASTM tools over other tools based on:

Ground based rope climbs are great space saving full body pulling exercises. However, the top of the climb ends up being the easiest part of the exercise. Some heavy chain is a great way to maintain resistance throughout the climb. Just be sure to pad the support chain you wear well!

This is part 3, the last of a series of posts reflecting on some highlights in learning about movement that I experienced in this last year. In part 1, I addressed my experience with Applied Functional Science / Chain Reaction™ Biomechanics and presented an application of this approach using hip internal rotation. In part 2, I reflected my current thoughts on strength and conditioning. Now in part 3, I discuss my thoughts behind Fascia, Anatomy Trains, and Regional Interdependence.

Much of what we thought we knew about the biomechanical science of fascia and myofascial release is bunk. By saying this, I need to make it clear in advance that this does not change how we treat, rather it changes how we educate our patients and perhaps makes you think more critically about why you might, or might not, want to treat in a certain way. Greg Lehman provides an excellent review of fascial science on his blog.

So what about Anatomy Trains, which I have previously stated may be a beneficial overview for regional interdependence? As Dr. Lehman discussed, it is extremely unlikely that from a manual therapy standpoint we are making biomechanical changes to tissue. If anything, the biomechanical representation of Anatomy Trains better represents fascial adaptation to function and will only respond to progressive overload with daily stresses and exercise. Furthermore, if we look at function and movement, “Form Follows Function” , then the representation presented by Anatomy Trains may vary individually because tissue adapts to the stresses induced on a daily basis.

So we need to throw out the patterns presented by Thomas Meyers, correct? I personally do not think so. This is not the first time we have developed a general map which is not truly accurate of an individual representation. Our good friend the cortical homunculus also is an inaccurate representation of the somatosensory cortex.

Why? Because the brain is plastic and the somatosensory cortex adapts to how we interact with the world over time, which is most clearly demonstrated by cortical reorganization in phantom limb pain. Yet we still can use the homunculus as a general representation to give us a visual to for understanding sensation. Similarly, I still believe that seeing the patterns in Anatomy Trains can help us better see movement globally and therefore help guide treatment with complex patients representations. From a movement perspective, especially globally, we need to have some way to compartmentalize all the information and how they approximately relate to each other. Joint by joint osteokinematics and arthrokinematics help but can get complex quickly when you combine them with muscles and fascia. Patterns, such as those represented by Anatomy Trains, which encompass both bone and soft tissue, can help compartmentalize and make treatment more efficient if used appropriately. Of course, the reverse is also true, chasing patterns religiously will also take away from the most obvious, efficient, and appropriate treatment approach. Needless to say, these patterns do manifest themselves in our clients and patients from time to time, and to be ignorant of their general representations will cost you and your patient time.

This is part 2 of a series of posts reflecting on some highlights in learning about movement that I experienced in this last year. In part 1, I addressed my experience with Applied Functional Science / Chain Reaction™ Biomechanics and presented an application of this approach using hip internal rotation. In this post, I will discuss how my strength and conditioning beliefs have changed in 2012.

I still believe in heavy sagital plane lifting. Power/explosive lifts, deadlifts, squats, various forms of pressing have important places with strength and conditioning in a number of sports. Gary Gray provides good reasoning to support the idea that athletic development does not gain a great deal from these lifts unless they are a competitive weight lifter. However, standardized tests improved by these lifts have been shown to be related to athletic success in research1,2 and professional experience does show these lifts cross over into training. It is possible these improvements may be related to changes in coaching over the career of an athlete but it doesn’t change the fact that intense overloads over time result is associated with athletes becoming stronger, more powerful, and faster. The carry over effects might not be driven purely by hypertrophy and increased neuromuscular drive, it could be endocrine related (increasing load is associated with increases in GH, testosterone, etc) and it could even be largely related by the mental discipline it takes to safely and properly lift increasingly difficult loads. The argument that he and others make is that there are other ways to accomplish this carry over and provide more specific tissue and neurological adaptation to sport. That may be the case, but it has not had the sheer volume and history of success as heavy sagital plane loading. There are certainly some sports I could see the value in dumping this type of loading today, but I think we might lose something, or cause a new problem, if we drop it all together.

So what about the multiplanar, multi-joint, functional training, corrective exercise realm? This is where I started my journey into movement through attending a seminar at Perform Better in 2003. At that time and many years looking forward, I just wanted to collect exercises and categorize them for individual purposes. I rode the anti-heavy lifting bandwagon for a good 4 years before I realized there was a value in it and put it back in my own system. I juggled the balance between the use of bigger lifts and the use of mobility/stability/sport specific power/strength development. I also began to realize how stability and mobility training was being scarred by the functional training movement. People see individuals squatting on stability balls and doing bicep curls on BOSUs under the claim of being “functional” when in fact, quite the opposite, they’re producing movements which simply do not exist in typical function unless they have some sort of odd circus specialty as a career.

In fact, for many the idea of stability training automatically seems to perceived as being on an unstable surface, which could not be further from the truth. Worse yet, when they are not on some sort of unstable surface they are frequently isolated and cued to be worked under artificial constraints of stability. Everyone is given at least 5 cues to tighten one muscle, loosen another, fire this muscle, not that one. These cues have a place when someone is painful or are early in a rehabilitation protocol, but they do not belong in an athlete’s prehab or conditioning program in the long term except if they have another exacerbation of symptoms. They do not allow the athlete the freedom of motion to develop control in multiple planes of motion. Stability is a joint by joint function specific task. Stability is not simply the ability to hollow, brace, or maintain perfect hip hinge technique (go ahead and tell any strong man competitor fully flexed over atlas stone that his spine is unstable while lifting).

Nor is stability hip abduction and external rotation strength and endurance which keeps this hip, knee, and ankle in a perfect sagital position. Stability is also nearly impossible to tease away from mobility. When mobility with load and force are only practiced in one plane of motion (IE: sagital plane heavy squatting, dead lifts, etc.), mobility will not improve in other planes of motion unless loaded in those planes of motion. Which brings me to our next topic, mobility needs training, not just stretching (dynamic or static):

I believe we can incorporate loaded and body weight exercises into general strategies for improving mobility which I think is more beneficial than a stretching regimen alone. We now know that long term static stretching flexibility improvements are primarily related to stretch tolerance, not tissue change. We are beginning to see that long-term resistance training with full ROM have similar flexibility improvements. 3,4 My belief is that incorporating more full body multiplanar movements with appropriate loading will therefore make more lasting changes in mobility in ways which are more functionally applicable than stretching because they reinforce active patterns of movement. Furthermore, performing these mobility exercises in weight bearing may theoretically promote joint stability at these newly acquire ranges of motion.

Finally, addressing the concern of timing of implementing all of these exercises into anyone’s program. Overall, I see some effectively implementing multi-planar/multi-joint mobility and stability into supplement work for their heavy sagital plane work. Some incorporate into into their metabolic days. To some extent, I will acknowledge it is possible that the advent of diverse multi-planar dynamic stretching prior to every session is already adequate to address my concerns. However, I still wonder if these are enough to make long standing changes in freeing up movement patterns, in particular in the transverse planes. Simply peppering a couple of mobility exercises from time to time may not be enough.

I began this year developing a program meant to complement existing training programs rather than replacing anything. It started first as a way to implement many of the old school strong man training and unconventional training techniques popular these days: focusing on grip strength and lifting and moving diverse objects into a dedicated session, as a way to expand motor patterns for force generation and just to mix up training. Some of this was just for entertainment and variety. Ultimately, after my exposure to the AFS approach and some of the group training at Shoreline Sport & Spine, this progressed to include a variety of multiplanar activities to promote mobility and stability. I now call these the “Mix” sessions, with the idea being utilize full body movements, lift and move diverse objects which require multiple forms of grip and body positioning, and integrate multiplanar/3D mobility and stability to complement an existing training plan.

The idea behind having these as separate sessions rather than integrated into existing sessions was that although I wanted some mild/brief fatigue from a metabolic style warm-up and a finisher at the end, I wanted to not have neuromuscular fatigue be so great prior to, or during, the session as to prevent the body from learning new movement it might not be familiar with.

I put together a video of some the exercises used in group sessions over the last year as this thought process evolved. This video is not the best representation of everything involved in a mix session or the balance of single plane vs. multi-plane diversity. I still have a large number of sagital plane based exercises, but it still demonstrates how the movement is changed by using objects other than barbells and how freedom of motion is promoted throughout. Of additional note, these sessions were designed for group sessions, the exercises recorded below were primarily for non-competitive athletes, these are different than a competitive athlete and the sessions can be customized be more “general sport specific”, but they are inherently limited in the ability to address an individual’s functional needs.

And if I’m completely honestly, it is just fun to have an entire dedicated session to experiment with movements that are different than what are traditionally used. Sometimes a little change is all that we need to move forward.